UAL Thinking???
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was cleaning out association files about 2001 I came across the original sales publicity for the B767. Remember this was a controversial item at the time as Ansett already had FEs on their B767s and Qantas had decided to buy them without FEs panel. At the time all FEs in Australia had a common Association the AAFEA.
What was very clear from that brochure was that Ansett was sold the aircraft as a 3 man aircraft and that ORIGINALLY the aircraft was designed with a real panel installed. Ansett was possibly the 1st customer for the B767 which may explain why this was so?
Wunwing
What was very clear from that brochure was that Ansett was sold the aircraft as a 3 man aircraft and that ORIGINALLY the aircraft was designed with a real panel installed. Ansett was possibly the 1st customer for the B767 which may explain why this was so?
Wunwing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southwest Airlines briefly operated the 727-200 during the 1970s. Were these crewed completely by the leasing airline (Braniff ?) or just piloted by SWA pilots converted from the 737 ? If the latter, who or what, occupied the FE station ? This situation seems familiar; I'm sure I've asked the question before.
In the UK, Britannia Airways perhaps faced a similar situation when they had the pair of 707s for a year or two. Third pilot or FE ?
In the UK, Britannia Airways perhaps faced a similar situation when they had the pair of 707s for a year or two. Third pilot or FE ?
I'm pretty sure that SWA pilots trained as FE on these airplanes during that period.
As I've noted before, the original 767 design was for a 3 crew flight deck with a proper flight engineer panel and round dials - and the first six or seven aircraft were built that way. When the FAA decided that 2 crew was just as safe, everyone except Ansett changed to 2 crew with EICAS. So Ansett got some sort of bastardized flight deck with a ginned up flight engineer panel but full EICAS. No 767s were ever delivered with round dials for the pilots.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't take that to the bank as that's my recollection but it could be wrong.
The 767 FE panel was nothing more that sticking a few of the overhead switches and lights back on the "panel" tp appease the Annsett requirements, I recall seeing photos fo the hybrid FE station and the overhead panel on thses aircraft and I think it may have had the EICAS screen or a repeater back there as well?? Subsequent 767's through the most recent 767-300ERs still have the "panel" but minus any significant functioning switches other than a data loader and some switching/lights to verify a system is working and suspect that is designed per customer request.
The 767 FE panel was nothing more that sticking a few of the overhead switches and lights back on the "panel" tp appease the Annsett requirements, I recall seeing photos fo the hybrid FE station and the overhead panel on thses aircraft and I think it may have had the EICAS screen or a repeater back there as well?? Subsequent 767's through the most recent 767-300ERs still have the "panel" but minus any significant functioning switches other than a data loader and some switching/lights to verify a system is working and suspect that is designed per customer request.
Don't take that to the bank as that's my recollection but it could be wrong.
The 767 FE panel was nothing more that sticking a few of the overhead switches and lights back on the "panel" tp appease the Annsett requirements, I recall seeing photos fo the hybrid FE station and the overhead panel on thses aircraft and I think it may have had the EICAS screen or a repeater back there as well?? Subsequent 767's through the most recent 767-300ERs still have the "panel" but minus any significant functioning switches other than a data loader and some switching/lights to verify a system is working and suspect that is designed per customer request.
The 767 FE panel was nothing more that sticking a few of the overhead switches and lights back on the "panel" tp appease the Annsett requirements, I recall seeing photos fo the hybrid FE station and the overhead panel on thses aircraft and I think it may have had the EICAS screen or a repeater back there as well?? Subsequent 767's through the most recent 767-300ERs still have the "panel" but minus any significant functioning switches other than a data loader and some switching/lights to verify a system is working and suspect that is designed per customer request.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ansett B767 is an interesting story which I was purely an observer as our Association struggled. So after reading the various opinions on this I went to the history books, specifically the Purple Stripe produced by the AAFEA when they were winding up the Association .
According to that book, and as has been stated earlier, the B767 was originally produced in 3 versions including "hard wired three crew,new technology 2 crew and a 3 crew version that would allow conversion at a later date. It also says that the aircraft used for certification were 3 crew aircraft and the first 30 aircraft were built as 3 crew. All 30 were then converted to 2 crew but he Ansett aircraft were then converted to the 3 crew soft wiring to allow change at a later date.
Wunwing
According to that book, and as has been stated earlier, the B767 was originally produced in 3 versions including "hard wired three crew,new technology 2 crew and a 3 crew version that would allow conversion at a later date. It also says that the aircraft used for certification were 3 crew aircraft and the first 30 aircraft were built as 3 crew. All 30 were then converted to 2 crew but he Ansett aircraft were then converted to the 3 crew soft wiring to allow change at a later date.
Wunwing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, the APLA doctrine at the time was that regardless of the configuration used in the 767 or early 737-200, the 3rd pilot must have "meaningful duties" to support the 3 man crew concept.
The Ansett B767 is an interesting story which I was purely an observer as our Association struggled. So after reading the various opinions on this I went to the history books, specifically the Purple Stripe produced by the AAFEA when they were winding up the Association .
According to that book, and as has been stated earlier, the B767 was originally produced in 3 versions including "hard wired three crew,new technology 2 crew and a 3 crew version that would allow conversion at a later date. It also says that the aircraft used for certification were 3 crew aircraft and the first 30 aircraft were built as 3 crew. All 30 were then converted to 2 crew but he Ansett aircraft were then converted to the 3 crew soft wiring to allow change at a later date.
Wunwing
According to that book, and as has been stated earlier, the B767 was originally produced in 3 versions including "hard wired three crew,new technology 2 crew and a 3 crew version that would allow conversion at a later date. It also says that the aircraft used for certification were 3 crew aircraft and the first 30 aircraft were built as 3 crew. All 30 were then converted to 2 crew but he Ansett aircraft were then converted to the 3 crew soft wiring to allow change at a later date.
Wunwing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to respectfully disagree with some of the details quoted - the number of 767s with the three crew configuration was much less - 7 or 8 - when it was decided to convert everything to two crew. The number one aircraft (VA001) flew and went through the initial flight test program and cert with the 3 crew configuration - all the rest were reconfigured to two crew before they flew. VA001 was eventually also converted to the two crew configuration. Boeing kept VA001 and it was used as a flying test bed for various other changes - including the initial PW4000 flight tests - before being leased to the USAF and converted to the "Airborne Optical Adjunct" or AOA. The AOA had a big hump on the top of the fuselage which contained a cryogenically cooled infrared red sensor intended to track inbound ballistic missiles as part of the "Star Wars" missile defense system.
Have to laugh a little as we use to tell people that that a part of Paul Allen's advanced in flight entertainment system that Boeing was working on. Paul Allen was a co founder of Micro Soft and had a very vivid imagination regarding aviation and space flight when he was alive.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here's a question I raised earlier about Air Canada DC-8's configured to be operated with two pilots, no flight engineer. I saw a stretch-8 years ago with seat rails that would allow the FO to slide back to the FE panel and manipulate the levers and read the fuels. The idea was that they would take off with all the crossfeeds open and after 10000 feet the FO would periodically slide back and balance things out. A friend from Air Canada told me that several aircraft were modified but the union never bought off on the two-crew concept for the DC-8. The AC DC-8's were probably all freighters by then.
Or was my friend kidding me? I haven't been able to find a reference to the attempt to operate the DC-8 without an FE. Some DC-8's were give the 'microwave in a cave' glass cockpit conversion at places like UPS but they still had FE's.
Here's my earlier post about those claimed seat rails:
who still has flight engineers?
Or was my friend kidding me? I haven't been able to find a reference to the attempt to operate the DC-8 without an FE. Some DC-8's were give the 'microwave in a cave' glass cockpit conversion at places like UPS but they still had FE's.
Here's my earlier post about those claimed seat rails:
who still has flight engineers?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Along those same lines, Boeing built two different configurations for the Stratocruiser FE position.UAL used a fwd facing station with mini panel that contained some fuel controls and elect/hyd functions. I believe this panel could swung in such away that the pilots would have access to these controls. Engine instruments were in front of the pilots, not the FE. There may have been one more additional operators with this config. (NWA??), but I'm not sure. When UAL sold their Strats to BOAC they were reconfigured by Lockheed Aircraft at Idelwild before entering service with BOAC. This was a huge and very expensive undertaking. If you're ever in the 2501 Building (former train center) in Renton you can see a picture of one of these FE station aberations.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a professional FE from 1971 to retirement,I worked L1049, B707 and B747 (all models to 300).
Prior to commencing my FE training on B707s, I was a licensed ground engineer on Boeing 707s.
In those days our patterns were up to 18 days away,often to places with no or very limited communications back to main base. I often was called on to make maintenance decisions or "guide" the local engineers to get the show on the road. Often there was a need to point the pilots in the right direction as far as in flight defects and suitable diversions to cover engineering problems. A lot of what we knew was never in writing and my company even ran informal monthly engineering meetings to discuss problems and examine what had happened over the last month. All was very definitely not for recording. And the system worked very well, only to come unstuck when pilot only B767 came into being.I have read all the US documents that lead to the demise of the PFEs in the US and the major flaw in them is that they purely look at what switches were operated by the FE. In my opinion the FE did far more than operate a panel
On one of my last B747 trips I advised a captain on an engineering problem that no one on the ground could give timely advice on. I was later told that acting on my advice saved $750,000 Australian due to the aircraft being very tightly scheduled for the next 2 days with no possible replacement aircraft and no suitable tooling for a repair being available on the station we were departing from.
Another advantage of a non pilot engineer was that we could to a degree give an opinion from a very different perspective. We had a different reporting/disciple structure which I think was mentioned by John Beatty in one of his early CRM texts. While on duty we worked for the captain but our long term discipline was via the Chief FE and that meant in an examination of events ,if we were 'right , there was someone backing us up which wasn't always for the case for pilots.
I find it interesting that in the current B737 Max situation ,that the Indonesian aircraft that subsequently crashed ,managed to survive the 1st day with the problem had a 3rd pilot in the cockpit. I had a stab runaway on a B707 very early in my career and picked it as the runaway started,just because I was sitting facing fwd at the time and saw it run well before the pilots saw it.
Overall in my opinion the US operators removed a huge amount of experience from the flight deck many years too soon. When I retired on the scrapping of a number of our B747s, our Deputy chief Pilot said that the FEs had on average made a major contribution to saving at least 3 hull losses/FE. I would agree with that but my score was about 5. In long haul at least I think that we well and truly earned our pay.
Wunwing
Prior to commencing my FE training on B707s, I was a licensed ground engineer on Boeing 707s.
In those days our patterns were up to 18 days away,often to places with no or very limited communications back to main base. I often was called on to make maintenance decisions or "guide" the local engineers to get the show on the road. Often there was a need to point the pilots in the right direction as far as in flight defects and suitable diversions to cover engineering problems. A lot of what we knew was never in writing and my company even ran informal monthly engineering meetings to discuss problems and examine what had happened over the last month. All was very definitely not for recording. And the system worked very well, only to come unstuck when pilot only B767 came into being.I have read all the US documents that lead to the demise of the PFEs in the US and the major flaw in them is that they purely look at what switches were operated by the FE. In my opinion the FE did far more than operate a panel
On one of my last B747 trips I advised a captain on an engineering problem that no one on the ground could give timely advice on. I was later told that acting on my advice saved $750,000 Australian due to the aircraft being very tightly scheduled for the next 2 days with no possible replacement aircraft and no suitable tooling for a repair being available on the station we were departing from.
Another advantage of a non pilot engineer was that we could to a degree give an opinion from a very different perspective. We had a different reporting/disciple structure which I think was mentioned by John Beatty in one of his early CRM texts. While on duty we worked for the captain but our long term discipline was via the Chief FE and that meant in an examination of events ,if we were 'right , there was someone backing us up which wasn't always for the case for pilots.
I find it interesting that in the current B737 Max situation ,that the Indonesian aircraft that subsequently crashed ,managed to survive the 1st day with the problem had a 3rd pilot in the cockpit. I had a stab runaway on a B707 very early in my career and picked it as the runaway started,just because I was sitting facing fwd at the time and saw it run well before the pilots saw it.
Overall in my opinion the US operators removed a huge amount of experience from the flight deck many years too soon. When I retired on the scrapping of a number of our B747s, our Deputy chief Pilot said that the FEs had on average made a major contribution to saving at least 3 hull losses/FE. I would agree with that but my score was about 5. In long haul at least I think that we well and truly earned our pay.
Wunwing
The B727s were flown by SWA seniority list pilots; Braniff was an arch enemy. As for the FEs, I'm a bit less certain but think they were SWA mechanics who had the chance to fill that spot. Don't bet the grocery money on that part of the story but that's what I recall. I'm always prepared to stand corrected.
Did a bit more research about SWA, their B727 days and the F/Es. When they got the first B727, they trained 5 F/Es who were in fact mechanics. As time went on and a few more airplanes were added, they hired pilot/F/Es.
Mooncrest,
A few more tidbits from the interesting history of SWA's B727 years. The info comes from an acquaintance doing a very deep dive into the company's flight ops history.
“From February through June 1984 six classes totaling 24 would train to become Flight Engineers bringing the total number of Southwest trained Flight Engineers to 35 during this period. They included three Check Engineers. 22 of these 35 Southwest trained Flight Engineers would later become Pilots at Southwest Airlines…”
“…near the end of the drawdown…Vice President of Flight Operations, gave all the Flight Engineers one year to secure an ATP certificate and they would be offered a Pilot training class. Many did, some didn’t.”
A few more tidbits from the interesting history of SWA's B727 years. The info comes from an acquaintance doing a very deep dive into the company's flight ops history.
“From February through June 1984 six classes totaling 24 would train to become Flight Engineers bringing the total number of Southwest trained Flight Engineers to 35 during this period. They included three Check Engineers. 22 of these 35 Southwest trained Flight Engineers would later become Pilots at Southwest Airlines…”
“…near the end of the drawdown…Vice President of Flight Operations, gave all the Flight Engineers one year to secure an ATP certificate and they would be offered a Pilot training class. Many did, some didn’t.”
Last edited by bafanguy; 16th Nov 2019 at 12:27.
